Journal of evaluation in clinical practice最新文献

{"title":"From Evidence to Bedside: A Qualitative Study of Mindlines in Critical-Care Physiotherapy Practice","authors":"Ritika Panekar,&nbsp;Manish Prannath Shukla,&nbsp;Santosh P. Dobhal","doi":"10.1111/jep.70650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70650","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Translating evidence-informed recommendations into routine critical-care physiotherapy remains challenging because clinical decision-making occurs within dynamic and context-dependent environments. The mindlines model provides a conceptual perspective for understanding how clinicians integrate research evidence with experiential, social, and contextual knowledge during everyday practice. However, its application in critical-care physiotherapy remains poorly understood.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To explore how physiotherapists working in critical-care units develop and apply mindlines during clinical decision-making and how evidence-informed recommendations are integrated into routine practice.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 22 experienced physiotherapists from diverse critical-care settings. Participants had 5–20 years of ICU experience and were recruited through purposive sampling. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis following an inductive approach, with interpretation informed by the mindlines model. Reporting adhered to the COREQ. 32-item checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Five interconnected themes were identified: (1) experience as the primary driver of clinical reasoning, (2) interdisciplinary collaboration shaping decision-making, (3) contextual adaptation of evidence-informed recommendations, (4) time constraints influencing engagement with formal evidence and (5) organisational variation across institutional settings. Participants described integrating research evidence with accumulated clinical experience, multidisciplinary interactions, and contextual factors to support patient-specific decision-making in complex critical-care environments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Clinical decision-making in critical-care physiotherapy reflects the integration of evidence-informed recommendations with experiential, collaborative, and contextual knowledge through clinicians' mindlines. Recognising these knowledge-translation processes may inform educational, implementation, and organisational strategies that strengthen evidence-informed physiotherapy practice in critical-care settings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149099909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Health Economic & Implementation Determinants of Prehospital Stroke Triage Tools: A Systematic Review","authors":"Nadja Alexandrov,&nbsp;Durk-Jouke van der Zee,&nbsp;Maud B. R. C. Eurlings,&nbsp;Maritta N. van Stigt,&nbsp;Monique Theunissen,&nbsp;Erik Buskens,&nbsp;Koen M. van der Waaij,&nbsp;Erik D. Gommer,&nbsp;Jonathan M. Coutinho,&nbsp;Maarten Uyttenboogaart,&nbsp;Maarten M. H. Lahr","doi":"10.1111/jep.70634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70634","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Rationale</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Effective prehospital stroke triage enables faster treatment and better patient outcomes. Although prehospital triage innovations are rapidly emerging, evidence regarding the balance between costs and benefits as well as implementation issues remains limited.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review aims to synthesise published evidence on health economics and implementation determinants of prehospital triage tools for acute suspected ischaemic stroke patients.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A systematic search was conducted across five databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science) between 1995 and 2025. Results were reported narratively, and reporting quality was assessed using CHEERS, STROBE-simulation, COREQ, CONSORT, SQUIRE, and GRAMMS. Included were empirical studies of EMS-operated prehospital triage innovations for acute suspected stroke patients. The main outcome measures were health economic outcomes (e.g., ICER) and system-level implementation determinants (CFIR constructs).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>From 6491 screened studies, thirty-one were included: thirteen studies included health economic outcomes and eighteen reported implementation determinants. Prehospital triage tools assessed were: MSU (<i>n</i> = 14), telemedicine (<i>n</i> = 13), clinimetrics (<i>n</i> = 1), prehospital MRI (<i>n</i> = 1), biomarkers (<i>n</i> = 1), and an AI-based microwave tool (<i>n</i> = 1). Most studies (68%) were of high reporting quality. Positive results regarding cost-effectiveness were reported (<i>n</i> = 11), including cost-savings (<i>n</i> = 1), as well as implementation determinants (<i>n</i> = 11). However, evidence on sustained implementation was limited. Barriers included innovation design, complexity, workflow compatibility, work and IT infrastructure, and costs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Included studies suggest most prehospital stroke triage tools are cost-effective, but implementation remains largely context-dependent. Barriers, including innovation complexity, role delineation, workflow fit, design, and costs, highlight the need for future studies to integrate health economics into an implementation science framework alongside clinical outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70634","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149099912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Design Principles for Incident Reporting Systems in General Practice: Recurring Recommendations, Rarely Compared-Evidence Mapping and a Proof-of-Concept Deployment in Italy.","authors":"Gianmarco Sirago, Fiorenza Zotti, Filippo Anelli, Francesca Sannino, Michele Abbinante, Alessandro Dell'Erba, Davide Ferorelli","doi":"10.1111/jep.70659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70659","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;A small set of design principles-anonymity, simplicity, voluntary participation, timely feedback and a non-punitive culture-is recommended for incident reporting systems in primary care with a consistency that is itself notable. Whether those principles have been tested has attracted far less attention than whether they have been named.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aims and objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To establish what evidence supports the design principles conventionally recommended for incident reporting systems in primary care, and to report, as a proof of concept, the deployment of an instrument built on those principles among Italian general practitioners.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Method: &lt;/strong&gt;A two-part study comprising an evidence synthesis followed by an observational pilot. Part 1 was a structured evidence map based on a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library, with backward and forward citation searching of 14 seed publications (PROSPERO CRD420251080728), reported according to PRISMA 2020, with duplicate screening. Each included source was coded against each principle by level of evidence, from not addressed through presupposed, recommended, contested and empirically examined to directly tested, the last requiring the principle to be compared or manipulated and related to a measured reporting outcome. Part 2 was a prospective descriptive deployment of a voluntary web-based reporting instrument among eight general practitioners in Apulia, Southern Italy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;A total of 202 sources were included, spanning 1992-2026. Sixteen compare conditions, four of them randomised trials and four with a parallel comparator group. Three sources compare a design characteristic against an alternative and relate the comparison to a measured reporting outcome, and their findings diverge. Confidential reporting yielded more codable reports than anonymous reporting, an observational comparison in which reporters chose the mode. A dictation system produced no significant difference in the number of reports submitted compared with paper, and users preferred paper. A standardised form may slightly increase reporting, an estimate from a single low-certainty study drawn from pharmacovigilance rather than incident reporting. Voluntary participation, timely feedback and a non-punitive culture have not been compared against an alternative in any source. None of them isolates a single design characteristic: two randomised trials intervene on safety culture rather than on the design of the reporting system, and the remainder test multicomponent packages from which no single principle is separable. During the deployment, which ran from February to June 2025, 10 reports were submitted involving 8 practitioners; the number of distinct reporters could not be established. Five of ten concerned aggression towards the practitioner or practice staff and six involved communication failures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: &lt;/strong&gt;W","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70659"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149194766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Improving Adequacy in Endocrine Practice: Reducing Low-Value Care and Advancing Value-Based Medicine.","authors":"Juan J Díez","doi":"10.1111/jep.70687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70687","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Low-value care represents a major and under-recognized threat to quality, safety, and sustainability in clinical endocrinology. This review aims to critically examine the role of overdiagnosis and overtreatment as key drivers of low-value care and to identify strategies to support the transition towards value-based endocrine practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a narrative review integrating current evidence on low-value care, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment in endocrinology. We also analyzed major international initiatives (e.g., Choosing Wisely, Right Care) and national programs, with particular focus on the \"do not do\" recommendations developed by the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition (SEEN), as well as emerging frameworks from implementation and deimplementation science.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Low-value practices are highly prevalent in endocrinology, driven by extensive use of diagnostic testing, evolving disease definitions, and uncertainty in clinical decision-making. These factors contribute to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, often triggering diagnostic-therapeutic cascades that increase patient harm, psychological burden, and healthcare costs without improving clinically meaningful outcomes. Although \"do not do\" recommendations and guideline-based initiatives provide actionable tools, their impact remains limited due to clinical inertia, cultural norms favoring intervention, and systemic barriers to deimplementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reducing low-value care is essential to advancing high-quality, patient-centered endocrinology. This requires not only evidence-based recommendations but also transformative changes in clinical culture, clinician behavior, and healthcare systems, ensuring that care consistently maximizes benefit while minimizing harm.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70687"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149220415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Unraveling the Barriers to Medical Care in Developing Countries: An Integrated Grey DEMATEL-ANP Approach to Understanding Avoidance.","authors":"Ayşe Nur Adıgüzel Tüylü, Yakup Çelikbilek","doi":"10.1111/jep.70679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70679","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Timely access to medical care is essential for maintaining public health. However, many individuals deliberately avoid seeking medical attention, resulting in poorer health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Understanding the underlying reasons for medical care avoidance is therefore crucial for developing effective healthcare interventions and policies.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to identify, analyse, and prioritise the interrelated factors contributing to medical care avoidance in European countries classified as developing countries according to the OECD definition, using an integrated Grey-DEMATEL-ANP decision-making framework.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A cross-sectional decision-analytic study was conducted employing an integrated Grey-DEMATEL-ANP approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Grey-DEMATEL method was used to determine the causal relationships among the key barriers to medical care avoidance, while the Analytic Network Process (ANP) was applied to prioritise their relative importance based on expert evaluations conducted in June 2026.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Systemic concerns, psychological concerns, financial concerns, lack of information and perception, and logistical factors were identified as the major dimensions influencing medical care avoidance. Financial concerns emerged as the most influential barrier, accounting for 93.29% of the overall importance. When financial concerns were excluded from the analysis, systemic concerns became the dominant factor (40.31%), followed closely by psychological concerns, which demonstrated a comparable level of importance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings provide a structured decision-making framework for policymakers and healthcare professionals to develop targeted interventions aimed at reducing medical care avoidance. Addressing the identified barriers may improve patient engagement, enhance health outcomes, and support more efficient allocation of healthcare resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70679"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149228008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Medical Evidence in Motion: Progress, Distortion, and the Clinician's Dilemma.","authors":"Malvinder S Parmar","doi":"10.1111/jep.70688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70688","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70688"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149228025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What Are the Implications of Longitudinal Burnout Measurement for Pre-Clerkship Screening and Institutional Support?","authors":"Keshav Banga","doi":"10.1111/jep.70669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70669","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70669"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149220260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Breaking the Silence: A Mixed-Methods Study of Barriers and Solutions to Incident Reporting in Critical Care Units.","authors":"Mohammed Musaed Al-Jabri, Amina Hemida Salem Ghattas, Marwa Samir Sorour, Amal Diab Ghanem Atalla","doi":"10.1111/jep.70623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70623","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Incident reporting is a cornerstone of patient safety, particularly in critical care settings where patients are highly vulnerable to adverse events. Despite international efforts to promote safety reporting, underreporting persists, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Nurses, as frontline providers, are central to detecting and reporting incidents; however, psychological, organizational, and cultural factors often limit their engagement in reporting processes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore barriers to incident reporting among nurses working in critical care units and identify nurse-informed solutions to strengthen reporting practices and patient safety culture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convergent mixed-methods design was employed. A convenience sample of 251 critical care nurses was recruited from eight critical care units of a university hospital. Quantitative data were collected using the researcher-developed Incident Reporting Survey (IRS), which underwent content validation and reliability testing. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression were performed using SPSS version 23. Qualitative data were obtained through two open-ended survey questions and analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis framework. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated during interpretation through triangulation to generate a comprehensive understanding of reporting barriers and potential solutions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nurses reported limited awareness of reporting procedures and reluctance to submit reports. Major barriers included fear of blame and punishment, lack of anonymity, heavy workload, inadequate training, and limited managerial support. Qualitative findings reinforced these issues and further highlighted concerns about professional reputation, ineffective feedback mechanisms, and complex reporting systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Incident reporting remains insufficient due to interconnected individual and organizational barriers. Cultural, educational, and system-level interventions-particularly non-punitive policies and leadership support-are essential to enhance reporting behaviors and strengthen patient safety outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70623"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149110759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Inverted Sign: Rule-In, Rule-Out, and the Epistemology of the Red Flag.","authors":"Albert Grüger","doi":"10.1111/jep.70674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70674","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale, aims and objectives: </strong>A validated rule-out instrument can turn the collective absence of warning findings into an explicit warrant for stopping a specified diagnostic inquiry. This paper characterises that inversion in clinical use and asks whether 'red flag' adequately distinguishes it from using positive signs to pursue suspected lesions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Comparative conceptual analysis of the clinical sign, exemplified by Babinski's plantar response, and the Ottawa Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Rule. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) back-pain guidance and SNNOOP10 headache checklist are examined as heterogeneous comparators. Five objections test the argument, including its compatibility with Bayesian reasoning.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The inversion concerns intended clinical use and the direction of licensed action, rather than an intrinsic direction of inference determined by sensitivity or specificity. Ottawa provides the paradigm case: within its defined eligible population, absence of all criteria can support foregoing further investigation for subarachnoid haemorrhage. A positive result does not establish the diagnosis, and the composite rule's low specificity does not make every constituent criterion uninformative. Three consequences follow: licensed action can shift from pursuit to stopping; epistemic authority is partly redistributed toward validated thresholds; and negative findings can provide a shared justification for closing a specified diagnostic pathway. Clinical judgement remains necessary throughout. Resource consequences should be distinguished from rationing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The distinctive object is a decision architecture connecting evidence to permission not to investigate. Its limits become clearer when validated rule-out instruments are distinguished from mixed warning checklists and their practical function is separated from their probabilistic properties.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70674"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149169659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Can Umbrella Reviews Establish Consensus in Clinical Practice?","authors":"Thiago P Fernandes, Natanael A Santos","doi":"10.1111/jep.70635","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jep.70635","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidence-based clinical practice is grounded in research and interpretation of findings. Individual studies capture only part of the evidence relevant to a clinical question, making synthesis important for evaluating consistency and precision. Systematic reviews bring relevant studies together, and meta-analyses use statistical methods to integrate findings. Umbrella reviews emerged to organise and contextualise findings across multiple reviews on a given topic. Convergence across umbrella reviews can support decision-making, but apparent agreement does not necessarily represent independent confirmation when the same primary studies recur across reviews. Substantial overlap can also create apparent disagreement when similar evidence is analysed using different eligibility criteria, outcome selection, or statistical methods. Dependence among included syntheses can persist despite established methods for identifying and managing overlap. The number of concordant syntheses should not be mistaken for the number of independent lines of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 7","pages":"e70635"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149166202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}